BDLR whines about being called on holding back discovery, and includes as an exhibit a written statement from W8 that was prepared around March 19, 2012 and not given to the defense until March 13, 2013? Okay.

BDLR whines about being called on holding back discovery, and includes as an exhibit a written statement from W8 that was prepared around March 19, 2012 and not given to the defense until March 13, 2013? Okay.

It may be that the state first received the handwritten note on March 15, the day that defense took the deposition of Sybrina.

It may be that the state first received the handwritten note on March 15, the day that defense took the deposition of Sybrina.

That's a good point. If that's the case, the question is why Fulton didn't turn it over before. Is it because she realized the statement was inconsistent with W8's later statements? Why did Fulton finally decide to turn it over if she'd withheld it so long?

That reference she makes to taking a shortcut is intriguing. Frank Taafe points out that Martin could have cut diagonally through TRATL by the pond to quickly get from Frank's house to the one he was staying at. Zimmerman wouldn't be able to follow him in the car or see Trayvon in the darkness. But Martin apparently took the long way around by heading towards to clubhouse and up TTL. I can't identify any part of his route as a shortcut. Starting from the 711, he was really taking his time getting home including the time by the dog walk. Good luck to the defense to see if they can get what she really heard on the phone out of her.

That's a good point. If that's the case, the question is why Fulton didn't turn it over before. Is it because she realized the statement was inconsistent with W8's later statements? Why did Fulton finally decide to turn it over if she'd withheld it so long?

Given Bernardo's skill at interviewing, I suspect Sybrina was not previously asked if she had any written materials pertaining to the case, and the defense, being recently off a partial deposition of Witness 8, may have learned that Witness 8 handed a note to Sybrina. Under those circumstances, Sybrina would have been told by Bernardo, to bring the note, if she still had it, or be prepared to explain being unable to produce it at her upcoming deposition.

"I'm glad I have it now. I don't know when (the state) received it," O'Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.

So his exhibit is new evidence turned over almost a year after it was written, but he refuses to say when he got it. Is BDLR trying to establish a new standard for chutzpah? I hope along with their reply the defense files a motion demanding more information on the "letter."

So his exhibit is new evidence turned over almost a year after it was written, but he refuses to say when he got it. Is BDLR trying to establish a new standard for chutzpah? I hope along with their reply the defense files a motion demanding more information on the "letter."

DENIED. Until such time as the defense can show that it has exhausted its means of finding that out. It's not chutzpah when the courts give a nod and a wink.

Incidentally, if you haven't read the piece at the Sentinel, O'Mara says that the prosecution gave him a copy of this letter on March 13, the same day as the deposition of Witness 8.

The one-page letter largely corroborates Witness 8's other accounts of what she heard on the phone: Trayvon was returning from the store when he noticed a man following him and fled.

I don't think the writer was being purposely misleading, but "corroborates" seems like the wrong word. "Matches" would be better. The same witness repeating a similar story does not corroborate the witness's statement.

...Incidentally, if you haven't read the piece at the Sentinel, O'Mara says that the prosecution gave him a copy of this letter on March 13, the same day as the deposition of Witness 8.

There are a number of reports elsewhere that they didn't get it until the 15th.

Since the article doesn't have that part in quotation marks indicating that that was exactly what O'Mara said, I'm going to withhold final judgement on exactly which day it was, although it was certainly about a year late.

There are a number of reports elsewhere that they didn't get it until the 15th.

Since the article doesn't have that part in quotation marks indicating that that was exactly what O'Mara said, I'm going to withhold final judgement on exactly which day it was, although it was certainly about a year late.

The prosecution filing of supplemental discovery #13 assigns the March 15 date as the first production to the defense, so I can understand how many reports use that date.

I think more important that the difference between March 13 and March 15 is the question of when the state obtained the handwritten page described as a March 19, 2012 letter by Witness 8.

The prosecution filing of supplemental discovery #13 assigns the March 15 date as the first production to the defense, so I can understand how many reports use that date.

I think more important that the difference between March 13 and March 15 is the question of when the state obtained the handwritten page described as a March 19, 2012 letter by Witness 8.

I think whether the defense had it on the 13th, when they were attempting to depose Witness 8, author of the letter, or whether they didn't get it until the 15th, perhaps in time to at least ask Sybrina about it, matters.

And this letter not surfacing until almost a year later certainly matters.